[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

baptism had become so definitely fixed at this early date, that such an allusion would speak for itself. The metaphor in fact is very common in the Lxx, e.g. Job viii. 22 (alorxivnv), xxix. 14 (81katoor ovnv), xxxix. 19 (p68ov), Ps. xxxiv. 26 (alorxıvny kal évrportiv), xcii. 1 (ewmpéneway, 8trapuy), ciii. 1, etc.; comp. YkooSocoróat 1 Pet. v. 5. See also Schöttgen on Rom. xiii. 14. On the other hand in the context of the passage of Justin quoted below (ver. 28) there is apparently an allusion to the baptismal robes. 28, 29. “In Christ ye are all sons, all free. Every barrier is swept away. No special claims, no special disabilities exist in Him, none can exist. The conventional distinctions of religious caste or of social rank, even the natural distinction of sex, are banished hence. One heart beats in all : one mind guides all : one life is lived by all. Ye are all one man, for ye are members of Christ. And as members of Christ ye are Abraham's seed, ye claim the inheritance by virtue of a promise, which no law can set aside.’ oùx ovo) “there is no room for, no place for, negativing not the fact only, but the possibility, as James i. 17 map' o our ivi m'apax\ayń. The right account of ovi seems to be given by Winer § Xiv. p. 96. It is not a contraction of oveori, but the preposition év, vi, strengthened by a more vigorous accent, like ori, orápa, and used with an ellipsis of the substantive verb. "EAAmy) See the note ii. 3. àporev kai 65Mu] The connecting particle is perhaps changed in the third clause, because the distinction now mentioned is different in kind, no longer social but physical. There may

be an allusion to Gen. i. 27 áporev rai 67Av motmorev aurows, and if so, this clause will form a climax: “even the primeval distinction of sex has ceased.’ Comp. Col. iii. 11. Either on this passage, or on some unrecorded saying of our Lord similar in import (comp. Luke xx. 35), may have been founded the mystical language attributed to our Lord in the apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians (Clem. Alex. Stron. iii. p. 553, ed. Potter). Being asked by Salome when His kingdom should come, He is reported to have answered, “When the two shall be one, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.” These obscure words were much discussed in early times and diversely interpreted, e.g. by the Ophites (Hippol. Haer. v. 7), by the Pseudo-Clement of Rome (Epist. 2, § 12), by Cassianus (Clem. Alex. l.c.), and by Theodotus (Clem. Alex. p. 985). Comp. also the remarks of Clement of Alexandria himself, pp. 532, 539 sq., besides the passage first cited. See the note on Clem. Rom. l.c. Foranothercoincidence of St Paul's language with a saying attributed to our Lord, but not found in the Gospels, see I Thess. v. 21. els doré] “are one man.’ Comp. Ephes. ii. 15 roës 800 krian év auró els £va kauvöv čv6porov, and Justin Dial. § 116, p. 344 B otros justs of 8a row *Imaoü Övöuaros is els áv6poros marretoravres...ra Évrapā indirua dirmuqueopuévol x.r.A., which seems to be a reminiscence of this passage of St Paul. The neuter ov, found in some texts, destroys the point of the expression, the oneness as a conscious agent. 29. Xplorrow] “are part of Christ, are members of Christ, not merely

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The interpretation of Deut. xxi. 23.

This passage occupied an important place in the early controversies between the Christians and the Jews. Partly owing to this circumstance, and partly from the ambiguity of the Hebrew, it was variously interpreted and applied.

The words of the original are on bonox noop *5, ‘for (the) curse of God (is) he that is hanged.' The ambiguity arises out of the construction of B'nos, since the case attached to noop may denote either the person who pronounces the curse, as Judges ir. 57 (Dn)" noop) and 2 Sam. xvi. 12 (noop in the Qri), or the person against whom the curse is pronounced, as Gen. xxvii. 13 (Troop) ; in other words, it represents either a subjective or an objective genitive. As we assign one or other sense therefore to the dependent case, we get two distinct interpretations.

1. ‘He that is hanged is accursed in the sight of God.' This is the rendering of the Lxx, kekarnpapévos ūrö row esov, adopted in substance, it would appear, by St Paul; and seems to have obtained the suffrages of most recent commentators whatever their opinions. It is certainly supported by a more exact parallel (Judges ir. 57) than the alternative rendering, and seems to suit the context better, for the sense will then be, “Do not let the body hang after sunset; for the hanging body (of a malefactor) defiles the land, since the curse of God rests upon it.’

2. The other rendering is, “He that hangeth is a contempt of, a reproach or insult to God.' This seems to have been the popular Jewish interpretation (shared therefore by Jewish Christians) at all events from the second century of the Christian era. The passage was so taken by the Jewish or Ebionite translators, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus'. It is explained in this way in the ancient Jewish commentary on Deuteronomy, Siphri”, and in the so-called Targum of Jonathan". This rendering appeared also in the Ebionite Gospel". And in one of the earliest Christian apologies, a Jewish interlocutor brought forward this text, quoting it in the form, “He that hangeth is a reviling of God".’ It is found more

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

over in the Peshito Syriac". The same also would seem to be the interpretation adopted in the older Targum", where the passage runs, ‘Since for what he sinned before God he was hanged, but the paraphrastic freedom of this rendering leaves room for some doubt. Though these writers differ widely from each other as to the meaning to be put upon the words, they agree in their rendering so far as to take D'nox as the object, not the subject, of noop.

It may be conjectured that this rendering obtained currency at first owing to the untoward circumstances of the times. Jewish patriots were impaled or crucified as rebels by their masters whether Syrians or Romans. The thought was intolerable that the curse of God should attach to these. The spirit of the passage indeed implies nothing of this kind, but the letter was all powerful in the schools of the day: and a rendering, which not only warded off the reproach but even, if dexterously used, turned it against the persecutor, would be gladly welcomed”. An interpretation started in this way would at length become traditional".

But it was especially in controversies with the Christians, as I have The text mentioned, that the Jews availed themselves of this passage. In whatever 5. way interpreted, it would seem to them equally available for their purpose. j" The ‘offence of the cross' took its stand upon the letter of the lawgiver's Chrislanguage, and counted its position impregnable. Again and again doubt-tians, less, as he argued in the synagogues, St Paul must have had these words cast in his teeth, ‘accursed of God,' or “an insult to God,' or “a blasphemer of God, is he that is hanged on the tree.' More than once the early Christian apologists meet and refute this inference, when writing against the Jews. This is the case with Ariston of Pella", with Justin Martyr", with Tertullian". In Jerome's time the same argument was brought by the Jews against the leading fact on which the faith of a Christian rests”; and later literature shows that Christ crucified did not cease to be “to the Jews a stumblingblock.’

* “Because whosoever blasphemeth God shall be hanged.”

pretation of a learned rabbi of our own
time: “L'impiccato è (produce) impreca-

* So it may be inferred from a comparison with the translations of Symmachus, of the Peshito, and of the Ebionite Gospel. Otherwise the same meaning might be got from the other rendering, ‘accursed of God,” and so “a sinner in the sight of God.”

* Thus the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, after rendering the passage as given above, p. 152, note 3, adds ‘unless his sins have occasioned it to him.’ It is possible however that this is aimed at Christianity. At all events it presents a curious contrast to the interpretation of the older Targum.

* See the passages quoted in Schöttgen here. The following is the inter

zione contro Dio (cioë: il lasciare il ca-
davere esposto lungo tempo alla pub-
blica vista non puč che irritare gli
animi, e indurli ad esecrare i giudici e
le leggi): e (oltracció) non devi rendere
impura la tua terra etc.,’ Luzzatto Il
Pentateuco, Trieste 1858.
* In the ‘Dispute of Jason and Pa-
piscus’; see above, p. 152, note 5, and
Routh Rel. Sacr. I. p. 95.
* Dial. c. Tryph. c. 96, p. 32.3 c.
* Adv. Judaeos $ 10.
* Hieron. l.c. So too in the work
of Evagrius (c. 430 A.D., see Gennad.
Vir. Ill. 50) entitled Altercatio inter
Theophilum Christianum et Simonem Ju-
dueum, Migne's Patr. Lat. xx. p. 1174 B.

and applied to death by crucifixion.

Active and passive meanings of Faith

The passage in Deuteronomy, it is true, does not refer directly to crucifixion as a means of execution, but to impaling bodies after death. It has been said indeed that Philo" speaks of the impalement there mentioned as a mode of putting to death, but this seems to be a mistake. Philo says, that Moses would have put such malefactors to death ten thousand times over if it were possible, but not being able to kill them more than once, he adds another penalty, ordering murderers to be gibbeted (ruwptav d'AAny trpoo biarárrera, koevow rows dwełóvras dvaokokomiseortal). Nor, so far as I am aware, is there any evidence to show that the Jews at the time of the Christian era interpreted the passage of death by crucifixion. Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment. The evangelist (Joh. xviii. 32) sees a providence in the delivering over of our Lord to the Romans to be put to death, so that He might die in the manner He himself had foretold. It had been employed occasionally in seasons of tumult by their own princes”, but was regarded as an act of great atrocity. Even the Roman looked upon crucifixion with abhorrence". To the Jew it was especially hateful, owing in part no doubt to the curse attaching to this ignominious exposure of the body in the passage of Deuteronomy. For though this passage did not contemplate death by crucifixion, the application was quite legitimate. It was the hanging, not the death, that brought ignominy on the sufferer and defilement on the land. Hence the Chaldee paraphrase of Deuteronomy employs the same word (nos) which is used in several places in the Peshito Syriac to describe the crucifixion of our Lord (e.g. Gal. iii. 1). Hence also later Jews, speaking of Jesus, called Him by the same name of reproach (on, “the gibbeted one’), which they found in the original text of the lawgiver". It was not that they mistook the meaning of the word, but that they considered the two punishments essentially the same. No Jew would have questioned the propriety of St Paul's application of the text to our Lord. The curse pronounced in the law was interpreted and strengthened by the national sentiment.

The words denoting ‘Faith.”

The Hebrew noirs, the Greek riorris, the Latin “fides, and the English “faith,' hover between two meanings; trustfulness, the frame of mind which relies on another; and trustworthiness, the frame of mind which can be relied upon. Not only are the two connected together grammati

[merged small][ocr errors]
« 前へ次へ »